A Question for Anarchists to Consider

One question that I’m interested in is what the cultural framework of hegemonic anarchism would look like. I think it’s clear the political aspect would more or less be a world of free cities, micronations, federated bottom-up imperiums, millets, eco-villages, intentional communities,  communes, diffused networks,  etc. But I wonder if there would be a singular hegemonic culture in the same way that the hegemony of liberal democracy was accompanied by the cultural dominance of a combination of bourgeois-Protestantism, Enlightenment rationalism, and unitary nation-states. If so, would it be the Left’s desire for “worldwide wokeness”? Would it be Hoppe’s bourgeois conservatism or the N-As anti-tech traditionalism? Or would there be “ultra-diversity” with no singular cultural center (like the diversity of Christian church denominations, restaurants, or pre-modern cultures)? Or would there be extreme dichotomies (technophobia vs technophilia, individualism vs collectivism, puritanism vs libertinism) as opposed to the bland centrism that tends to dominate liberal societies? Or would it be all of these depending on pre-existing cultural, historical, geographical, or technological factors?

A reader offers the following answer:

It’s hard to say. However, I think that a willingness to fight and an insistence on one’s own privilege and prerogatives is essential to the actual establishment of liberty. I suspect that in many cases the sort of people who would actually maintain libertarianism would be significantly more warlike than bourgeoisie anarchists or college kids would be comfortable with. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think that the conceit and notion of the right to feud and duel did more to actually establish corporate and individual rights than any pamphlets or liberal economic theories ever did. The knight, Hezbollah or the Shining Path are an essential ingredient to the establishment, maintenance and defence of liberties that the soft, rationalist modern man rejects, because I think they’re psychologically aware they’re incapable of it. I don’t think PTSD is real, I think it’s just how people who deal with the reality of power and Darwinian violence learn to operate, and the sheltered children of the Western world are afraid of it and uncomfortably around such people because they’re such fat crybabies.
What do others think?

Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State

Leave a Reply